DILIP @ DAGDU SAYAPPA GAIKWAD AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                            901-REVN-667-2016 (CR)-J.doc

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 667 OF 2016

1.      Dilip @ Dagdu Sayappa Gaikwad,
        Age: 65 years, Occ:retired,
        R/at: 65, Antrolikar Nagar,
        Hotgi Road, Solapur.
2.      Ravindra Dagdu Gaikwad,
        Age: 39 years, Occ: business,
        R/at: 65, Antrolikar Nagar,
        Hotgi Road, Solapur.

3.      Anamika Ravindra Gaikwad,
        Age: 35 years, Occ: business.,
        R/at: 65, Antrolikar Nagar,
        Hotgi Road, Solapur.

4.      Sheetal Dagadu Gaikwad,
        Age: 34 years, Occ:business
        R/at: 65, Antrolikar Nagar,
        Hotgi Road, Solapur.

5.    Rajni Arun Jadhav,
      Age: 35.years, Occ: business,
      R/at: 65, ’Antrolikar Nagar,
      Hotgi Road, Solapur.               ....Applicants
                  Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of ACB, Solapur)        .....Respondent
                                   .....
Mr. Abhishek Yende with Mr. Heanike Vyas & Mr. Sagar Paspohe,
Advocate for Applicants.
Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Shrikant H.
Yadav, APP, for Respondent-State.
Mr. Prashant Chougule, Dy.S.P., ACB, Solapur is present.
                                   .....

Gaikwad RD                                                            1/7
                                               901-REVN-667-2016 (CR)-J.doc

                       CORAM: MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,
                 RESERVED ON: 30th JULY 2026
            PRONOUNCED ON: 6th AUGUST 2026
                                 …..
Mr. Abhishek Yende with Mr. Heanike Vyas & Mr. Sagar Paspohe,
Advocate for Applicants.
Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Shrikant H.
Yadav, APP, for Respondent-State.
Mr. Prashant Chougule, Dy.S.P., ACB, Solapur is present.
                                 …..


JUDGMENT :-

1.      The Applicants are challenging the order passed by the Special

Court, Solapur, dated 19th September 2016 rejecting the discharge

application filed by the Applicants.


2.      It is the case of Applicant No.1 that both the discrete and open

inquiry were conducted against the Applicant No.1 along with other

Applicants in year 2005. In the said both enquiry conducted against

the Applicant No. 1, the accounts of the Applicant No. 1 was tested

out from the year 1973 to the year 2005 and nothing

disproportionate assets were found and hence the said enquiries

came to be closed on 22nd February 2008 by Director of General, ACB

Worli, Mumbai and the same was conveyed to the present Applicants

on 16th December 2008 by ACB, Thane.



Gaikwad RD                                                               2/7
                                                  901-REVN-667-2016 (CR)-J.doc

3.      The son-in-law of the present Applicant No. 1, Neeraj Jariwala,

in the year 2011, filed a complaint before the ACB, Pune on 17 th July

2011, alleging that the present Applicants bear disproportionate

assets in Pune District and had asked to conduct an enquiry into the

same.        It is alleged that based upon the said complaint, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Pune had called Neeraj Jaiswal for

recording his statement and the crime is registered.


4.      At the time of recording the statement of said complainant

Neeraj Jariwala, the Applicants were asked to remain present before

the same Authority for giving an explanation in the respect of

complaint filed by him. The Applicants were not served personally

for the same and thus it was not into their knowledge to remain

present for said inquiry before said Authority.


5.      In the said complaint, it was alleged that the present Applicants

purchased a property of worth Rs.6,68,529/- from the year 1973 to

1995, which amounts to 25% more than their income. It is said that

based upon the said complaint and allegation, an FIR came to be

lodged by the said Dy.S.P.-Bhatt against the present Applicants and

other co-accused persons on 12th February 2014 for the offences


Gaikwad RD                                                                  3/7
                                              901-REVN-667-2016 (CR)-J.doc

punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian

Penal Code.

6.      It is alleged that the accused persons have acquired a

disproportionate property of 25% more which revealed during the

enquiry and 10% more was added which was amount received by the

Applicant No. 4 by the gift amount from Janardhan Gaikwad of

about Rs.75,000/- and the rent of tractor of about Rs.1,50,120/-

which was denied by the Investigating Officer and hence,

disproportionate assets have raised to 33%.

7.      During the period of argument, the learned counsel for

Applicants has tendered the chart, which shows that the loan which

was taken in 1994 is shown in 1995-96 and, therefore, there was

increase in the disproportionate assets for the check period from

1973 to 2005, which includes 1994 and 1995. The said chart is

reproduced as under:




Gaikwad RD                                                              4/7
                                              901-REVN-667-2016 (CR)-J.doc

8.      After scrutinizing the available documents and the varsity of

the evidence, the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Worli

had closed the file against the Applicant No. 1.


9.      The allegations in the FIR are similar. The discrete and open

enquiry against all the Applicants was conducted by Thane, ACB and

check period of that enquiry was from year 1973 to 2005 and after

said enquiry, no disproportionate assets were found and hence that

enquiry was closed on 28th February 2008. The Investigating Officer

had not taken into consideration the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which

was taken as a house loan by the Applicant no. 1 from Vaishya Bank,

Solapur in year 1994-95. Therefore, if the said loan is deducted then

DPA is only 4.20% in the year 1994-95. Similarly an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- received as rent of tractor in the year 1994 has to be

deducted, because tractor was purchased in the year 2004.


10.     One Mr. Janardhan Gaikwad has gifted Rs.75,000/- in year

1994 and he has filed the affidavit. It was accepted while conducting

the enquiry and it was accepted and given a clean chit in the year

2008.




Gaikwad RD                                                              5/7
                                                                 901-REVN-667-2016 (CR)-J.doc

11.     The Learned APP has also conceded that the said amount is

considered in year 1995 and, therefore, there is no any

disproportionate property against these Applicants.


12.     The learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the

Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar v. The

State of Bihar1 to buttress his contentions that the period of 1994-95

is considered while conducting open and discrete enquiry and after

the said enquiry, no disproportionate assets were found and hence,

that enquiry was closed. The learned counsel for the Applicant has

further relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of Madhya Pradesh.2


13.     Considering the document which is tendered and the

Authorities cited by the Applicants, the case is made out to discharge

the Applicants from this offence.


14.     Hence the Application is allowed. The impugned order and

common order on Exhibit Nos.33 and 53 dated 19 th September 2016

passed by Special Judge, Solapur are quashed and set aside.


1   Cri.Appeal No.1562 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.9601 of 2016 Dtd. 14th September 2022.
2   AIR 1977 SC 796.

Gaikwad RD                                                                                           6/7
                                                                       901-REVN-667-2016 (CR)-J.doc

                        15.     The Applicants are hereby discharged from Special Case No.11

                        of 2015.


                        16.     The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposed of.




                                                             (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)


           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.08.07
           20:24:27
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                                                               7/7